WotC WotC Removes Digital Content Team Credits From D&D Beyond

According to Faith Elisabeth Lilley, who was on the digital content team at Wizards of the Coast, the contributor credits for the team have been removed from DDB.

The team was responsible for content feedback and the implementation of book content on the online platform. While it had been indicated to them that they would not be included in the credits of the physical books for space reasons, WotC apparently agreed to include them in the online credits.

It appears that those credits have now been removed.

I just discovered that I have been removed from book credits on D&D Beyond for books I worked on while at Wizards of the Coast.

Background:

While at Wizards (so after D&D Beyond was purchased) - with numerous books, my digital content team and I worked directly with the book team on the content, reading through rules drafts, suggesting changes, giving ideas, and catching issues. We had a full database of the content and understood exactly how it interacted.

Given that we were contributing to the content in the books, I felt it reasonable to request that team be added to the credits, but was informed the credits section was already too crowded with the number of people involved and many of the marketing team had already been dropped from credits. I felt strongly that anyone actually contributing to what is in the printed book should be credited though, so we agreed a compromise, that the team would be added to the credits page on D&D Beyond only, as there is no issue with "not enough space" on a web page.

I've added screenshots here that I had for some of the books.

At some point recently, those credits pages have been edited to remove the credits for me and the content team. Nobody reached out to let me know - it just happened at some point, and I only just noticed.

We've even been removed from the digital-only releases, that only released on D&D Beyond, such as the Spelljammer Academy drops.

I'm not angry or upset, just yet again, really disappointed, as somehow I expected better.

EDIT TO ADD MORE CONTEXT

It's not just getting the books online. I worked with Kyle & Dan to improve the overall book process from ideation to delivery across all mediums (you should have seen the huge process charts I built out...)

The lead designers would send over the rules for each new rulebook and we'd go through it, give feedback, highlight potential balance issues, look at new rules/design that was difficult to implement digitally and suggest tweaks to improve it etc etc. We even had ideas for new content that was then included in the book.

We'd go through the whole book in detail, catching inconsistencies and miscalculations, and I'm proud to say that we dramatically reduced the need for clarifications or errata on those books.

I'm not saying anyone on the design or book team was careless - far from it, they're consummate professionals - I am just illustrating the role my team and I had in contributing to the content, quality & success of the physical books, let alone the digital versions.

We should have been in the credits section of the physical printed book. We were part of the creative process. That was something we were actively discussing when I was informed I was being laid off.

Adding the team to the credits pages just on D&D Beyond was, as I mentioned above, a compromise while we figured things out.

My team were fully credited on the Cortex: Prime and Tales of Xadia books when D&D Beyond was still part of Fandom, before the Wizards acquisition.

In fact for those books we made sure to credit the entire digital development team, including developers, community managers and so forth - everyone who helped make the book successful.

I know that Wizards has hundreds of people involved and previously hit issues with the number of people in credits for D&D books, so pulled back from crediting some roles.

Would it be so bad to have to dedicate extra space in a book to the people whose contributions made the book successful?

I really don't think it would.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I'm not being petty, I'm explaining why everyone is getting so frustrated with you.

"X is true."

"That doesn't make sense to me; this is clearly untrue."

"I can confirm, X is true."

"I also have dealt with this; X is true."

"No, it doesn't make sense to me, so therefore it isn't."

If you are genuinely interested in understanding what's going on, you need to let go of whether or not something is true in your personal experience.

Well, I can see that you, personally, are getting frustrated with me.

Your interpretation of my position is pretty inaccurate. Maybe let go of your personal experience here? Trust that I am not your enemy? It feels like you've branded me without really understanding anything I've said.

 

[Incenjucar]

We have whole sections of law devoted to proving that X person did Y thing or came up with Z idea. The true creator of various comic book characters has been a heated debate longer than most of us have been alive. Credit matters.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not trying to lump you in with anything. Chill.

"Neither you nor I (nor many others) like it, but that is the world we all live in. "

Perhaps choose words more carefully, because that sentence did in fact lump me in with you(and many others) not liking it.

I don't know anything about US regulations. That is eyebrow raising. I get asked questions that would violate what you are saying regularly when I am used as a reference. What you are saying makes the presence of credits more important for sure. Speaks to a systemic problem with the hiring process in the US though (as a throwaway comment based on what you've just told me).

As I said, they(state governments) deliberately stop employers from being able to ask those questions or answer them, to the point where old employers will not say possible information that they COULD share for fear of possible lawsuit. Often employers will just acknowledge that the person worked there, give the dates of employment, and say whether they will rehire or not.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

We have whole sections of law devoted to proving that X person did Y thing or came up with Z idea. The true creator of various comic book characters has been a heated debate longer than most of us have been alive. Credit matters.

Roy Thomas is currently setting fire to his legacy by announcing that he should be listed as the primary creator of Wolverine, which is especially egregious as Len Wein, who's universally agreed to be the primary creator, is dead and unable to push back on Thomas' assertions. (Thomas was Wein's editor and made some editorial suggestions, Wein is the writer who created the character.)

The fights over who gets credited for Batman, Superman and the classic 1960s Marvel superheroes have lasted decades.

 

[Incenjucar]

Roy Thomas is currently setting fire to his legacy by announcing that he should be listed as the primary creator of Wolverine, which is especially egregious as Len Wein, who's universally agreed to be the primary creator, is dead and unable to push back on Thomas' assertions. (Thomas was Wein's editor and made some editorial suggestions, Wein is the writer who created the character.)

The fight over who gets credited for Batman, Superman and the classic 1960s Marvel superheroes have lasted decades.

And then, bringing it back to RPGs, you have the great Gygax vs. Arneson debate, which is still burning in other threads.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

"Neither you nor I (nor many others) like it, but that is the world we all live in. "

Perhaps choose words more carefully, because that sentence did in fact lump me in with you(and many others) not liking it.

I thought that the 'nor I' you left out of my quote would put us in the same club! Neither one of us like it!

As I said, they(state governments) deliberately stop employers from being able to ask those questions or answer them, to the point where old employers will not say possible information that they COULD share for fear of possible lawsuit. Often employers will just acknowledge that the person worked there, give the dates of employment, and say whether they will rehire or not.

Yeah, that's a bit yikesy. Reference checks here (usually one provides 3+ work references) can involve pretty pointed questions about the candidate. Only related to suitability for a position though, never about personal stuff. I actually had someone, though, ask me whether someone had ever worked on a product that related to or sponsored alcohol sales! I told them it was none of their business. People are weird.

 

[Mistwell]

I am disappointed by this news. Whatever the reasoning, and I am sure there is some reasoning in some email or memo or meeting notes somewhere, I don't think it's good reasoning relative to the harm (though I am opening to hearing it). And it seems tiringly consistent with some other relatively minor but still meaningful bad decisions WOTC's made in the past few years.

It's also much more visible news than some other companies that make just as many or more bad decisions internally but news of those bad decisions rarely gets out due to tighter corporate policies. That's not an excuse, I am just surprised so much news gets out from WOTC internal issues when there are companies the same size, of just as high a level of interest to a pop culture niche as this company, and I know a lot of their internal news along these lines never gets out.

 

[SteveC]

Then explain how the process works to the rest of us. There's no reason to get upset or offended. It's a reasonable request, particularly if you have any interest in getting folks on your side.

This is one of those cases where I guess I'll assume Ulorian has me on mute. We have a situation where the actual person involved with the issue is in the thread explaining how it works, and apparently, this is not enough to satisfy them.

Man, I'm feeling old because I've been involved with dozens; I might even say hundreds of discussions like this where nothing is ever enough to explain things. It's pretty rare for someone with authority like Faith to be in the thread, but it does satisfy my curiosity that nothing can explain something to a sufficient amount in these cases.

The thing that I've learned, and it's been a hard lesson, is that sometimes it's best just to back out. If someone isn't going to accept explanations, okay, let them. If you don't have experience in a given field, and people in that field are telling you how it is, listen to them. Maybe the way things are done isn't how you would do it, or even the "best" way (whatever that even means), but if people who are doing it tell you that's the way it is, perhaps listen to them.

I hope that everything works out for everyone involved here. I have to believe that it eventually will, but then sometimes I'm an optimist. Sometimes, I say negative things about WotC, and this issue really makes me mindful that WotC is really a corporation with goals that have nothing to do with my hobby. But it's also people who love RPGs trying to make the best game they can. Man, I feel for you because it's got to be hard to negotiate between your world and the corporate world. Thanks for all you do, creative people!

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Well, I can see that you, personally, are getting frustrated with me.

Your interpretation of my position is pretty inaccurate. Maybe let go of your personal experience here? Trust that I am not your enemy? It feels like you've branded me without really understanding anything I've said.

Hey, never met you before. Have no preconceived notions of you and you're being obtuse to an absolutely pathological degree. Get off this forum and get some help.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

This is one of those cases where I guess I'll assume Ulorian has me on mute. We have a situation where the actual person involved with the issue is in the thread explaining how it works, and apparently, this is not enough to satisfy them.

Man, I'm feeling old because I've been involved with dozens; I might even say hundreds of discussions like this where nothing is ever enough to explain things. It's pretty rare for someone with authority like Faith to be in the thread, but it does satisfy my curiosity that nothing can explain something to a sufficient amount in these cases.

The thing that I've learned, and it's been a hard lesson, is that sometimes it's best just to back out. If someone isn't going to accept explanations, okay, let them. If you don't have experience in a given field, and people in that field are telling you how it is, listen to them. Maybe the way things are done isn't how you would do it, or even the "best" way (whatever that even means), but if people who are doing it tell you that's the way it is, perhaps listen to them.

I hope that everything works out for everyone involved here. I have to believe that it eventually will, but then sometimes I'm an optimist. Sometimes, I say negative things about WotC, and this issue really makes me mindful that WotC is really a corporation with goals that have nothing to do with my hobby. But it's also people who love RPGs trying to make the best game they can. Man, I feel for you because it's got to be hard to negotiate between your world and the corporate world. Thanks for all you do, creative people!

Don't have anyone on mute, sorry if I missed your post. This is a weird screed to be honest. I don't even know where to start with it. You have misunderstood anything I've said at the deepest level. If you want to start over from square one, let me know. Otherwise, best of luck on your adventures!